The intention with the posting was to show the difference between drum scans and CCD scans and in some cases a digital image. You could say that the images I posted is my preferred rendition from each. What you don't see is that I have spent hours on the DSMP image and minutes on the digital image. But I'm not good at scanning negative film.

, . . .

Both BartvanderWolf and I are saying the same thing, from different perspectives.

Do not mistake the digital camera example (as provided by Erik) with what is possible. I have attached two tone mapped versions of the DC example where the shadows were opened a bit (and a lot) more than in Erik's post, and I could have gone much further. , . . .

- summary: BartvanderWolf can get digital to look like the result of the ErikKaffehr film scan and post production.

To each their own conclusions, though for me, the [drum scanned] film shows the most of what I want to see, or have available to make the image I want to [try] and get.

Pascal

- summary: I can get film to look like the result I want [or quite close] with film scan and post production, including looking like digital.

So, for "Hasselblad Scanner vs medium format back", the answer that works for me is film and the film scanner. It cost me quite less to get decent quality and density images, and scanning makes the film frames accessible for post-production.When I get an image I really like, I can get it scanned on a better scanner, resulting in a better base digital file that shows more density, and thus, more post production options.

By no means an I saying that this is valid for volume work.

For me, the density and 'look' of my usual film types (Velvia and Provia, with occasional Kodak E100G) provides me with images, at a certain quality, that I cannot afford going medium format digital. And I would need to take quite a bit of film frames to get close to the investment required for a decent digital back.

- have good access to a Nikon LS9000 with glass holder [for medium format] and own a Nikon LS2000 [for 35mm]- I'll pull some examples from my library when I can and post an example from a medium format scan.- I almost always use slide film on medium format, so that 'simplifies' my scanning: I set the scanner to match what I see on the light table.- I used to work at a service bureau with film recorders [making presentation slides, remember those?], so my workflow and expectations are not from the 'fine art' domain.- film scanning, in my experience, is an 'involved' operation compared to getting a frame from a digital back. I've used the 22MP Leaf Valeo on Hasselblad H1, which is/was a tethered system.

- have good access to a Nikon LS9000 with glass holder [for medium format] and own a Nikon LS2000 [for 35mm]- I'll pull some examples from my library when I can and post an example from a medium format scan.- I almost always use slide film on medium format, so that 'simplifies' my scanning: I set the scanner to match what I see on the light table.- I used to work at a service bureau with film recorders [making presentation slides, remember those?], so my workflow and expectations are not from the 'fine art' domain.- film scanning, in my experience, is an 'involved' operation compared to getting a frame from a digital back. I've used the 22MP Leaf Valeo on Hasselblad H1, which is/was a tethered system.

Can you share your experience of scanning? May be helpful for others scanning film. For instance which scanner on software you are using?, . . .

- as mentioned, the scanners are Nikon LS9000 and Nikon LS2000- software is always NikonScan of the appropriate version required to use the scanner:- the Nikon LS2000 is run from a PowerBookG3 running OS9 and NikonScan- the Nikon LS9000 is run from a PowerMacG5 running NikonScan on OSX

- and that scan is great, providing you with a very flexible file to work with towards getting the look you want. You can darken the image and get great density without boosting any values [meaning that you are not boosting noise].

...- and that scan is great, providing you with a very flexible file to work with towards getting the look you want. You can darken the image and get great density without boosting any values [meaning that you are not boosting noise]....

I use Vurscan mostly, in part because I have been involved with its implementation for the DSMP, it has been developed with my scanner as reference and I was doing all the testing.

The Minolta software works using PowerPC emulation on my Mac using Leopard but I think it would not work on latest OS like Lion or Mountain Lion. Vuescan doesn't find it if has not been initialized by Minolta driver, but I think there may be a workaround. The Minolta software is quite OK, BTW.

Erik, I noted you said that you are not good at scanning negative film. I expect that that is an overstatement. In any event, I understand your commitment to VueScan, but thought Iíd pass along something you may want to try with your Minolta scan software.

When you installed the Minolta software, it should automatically have installed two profiles: one for normal positive film scans and one for 16 bit linear scans. There is a third profile, however, in the Minolta program files that doesnít get installed automatically. It should be labeled MLTF5000n. That profile is a negative film profile. I know that there isnít supposed to be such a thing, but itís there none the less. And it works great (at least for me with the original Minolta 5400 scanner).

If you want to try it, here is what Iíve found works well. Of course you first need to install the MLTF5000n profile. Then, in the Minolta software, scan as a negative without any color management. Make no color or tone adjustments. Make some low resolution, fast test scans at various exposure settings, using only the master exposure slider. What youíre looking for is an ETTR exposure. Once you think youíve got the correct exposure, test it by opening it in PS and assigning the MLTF5000n profile (but donít convert to your working color space). Check the exposure. Rescan if necessary to get the proper ETTR exposure.

Once you have the correct exposure dialed in, set your scan resolution to the maximum native scan resolution. Manual focus on a uniform area if possible so that youíre focusing on the film grain. Use ICE if you like (which may have a slight effect on the exposure, so test again to be sure you still have the best exposure). Then scan and save that scan as you would the negative. Just to be safe, I usually immediately make a copy and work with it.

Open your scan in PS, assign the MLTF5000n profile, and then convert to your working color space (I use ProPhoto). At that point I sometimes run Neat Image to reduce film grain, save the file, and then open it in LR for most of my edits. Of course you can use whatever photo editing program you prefer.

I donít know how the Minolta engineers were able to create their negative profile, but I tried it with Fuji Reala and Kodak Gold 100, and it works great for both of them.

Iím not sure if this profile is something youíll like, but thought that you may want to try it, out of curiosity if nothing else.

I want to thank everyone for the excellent discussion. I'm very glad I asked. Erik, thank for the images.

I myself am not hung up at this point on the film vs. digital "look" question, I do agree they are different, and you'll definitely get certain looks, particularly if you go for a grainy image, with film you won't match as easily with digital. Since I shoot mostly landscapes it is detail I am most interested in, so based upon your input, I'll probably mess a bit more with my v700 scanner to see if film holder adjustments help in any way. It may be my sharpening settings in PS could also use some fine tuning. I have to admit though, I can post process a lot of digital images a lot faster than scanning, cleaning and post processing from film, even when I'm very careful about pre-cleaning to eliminate as much dust from my film, my work area and my scanner as possible. One thing I do hate abou the V700 is the glass is not readily removable. Even in a clean no-smoking house, mine picks up a cloudy film pretty quickly and its a pain to take the unit apart to clean the inside of the glass, thus part of the reason I'm interested in input on the Hasselblad or other scanners. But, I do worry about making too much more investment in film based work, as the population of film products continues to decline (assuming you don't count the eastern european films that are becoming available).

Someone raised the question regarding why I was straying away from DSLR's. I have a d90 and I'm happy with the camera, its some of the Nikon lenses I'm not so thrilled with. Most of my primes are probably 10-20 years old, and the 50 and the 28mm are two I really hate -- their images always look soft to me, compared to the sharpness and 3-d like quality I can easily extract from a Mamiya 645 AF or a Hassy (all tripod mounted). Hassy's (V series) though, hate the desert south west. Fine dust is always jamming up the gear mechanism on the film backs. Just too open of a design, the same reason I'm very hesitant to consider a Leaf Aptus back. Newer Nikon zooms are big step up in sharpness, but you sacrifice aperture and distortion. I'm much happier with the results of MF primes, though I agree that some 35mm primes (like Leica, Zeiss) will have resolution values higher than their MF cousins.

The image, if I've posted this right, is about the limit of what I've managed to get from scanning 6x7 (note this is ress'ed down to 1024 pxls wide at 72 ppi).

That is a lovely image... what a beautiful spot.However you can get more detail form the v700.

A few suggestions. Scan at the highest native setting 6400 and then scale down in photoshop.Also I suggest downloading the Silverfast software. You can download it in demo mode for free.

However if you are looking for the most detail you should look at getting a MFD camera or a Nikon d800e and replace the lenses you have.Based on your comments regarding dust etc you should go for the Pentax 645D with it's better weather sealingis more appropriate than the DF or Hasselblad H. The image quality beteween the Pentax and the D800 will be very very close with some advantages to each. However the price difference is quite large.

The D90 is not anywhere close to the D800 or even the D600. The sensor in the D90 is a crop sensor so it is discarding much of your lenses resolutionangle of view. It has more dynamic range, less noise, better tonal resolution and is 36MP instead of 12mp. Compare the two in DXOMark

I would also recommend a digital solution, one of the great things about digital is you can stitch a panorama if you need a larger angel of view, or merge a HDR shot if there is too much contrast. You can do this with film but it becomes more difficult.

Fine dust is always jamming up the gear mechanism on the film backs. Just too open of a design, the same reason I'm very hesitant to consider a Leaf Aptus back.

If it's getting in there it's getting into all sorts of nooks and crannies.The fine dust is a real nightmare.When I shoot in the deserts, especially the slat flats even the weather sealed gear is put together at the hotel and wrapped in commercial kitchen plastic wrap.Same thing at the beaches.

The leaf Aptus backs have cooling fans air and dust in air and a bit less dust out.There is no weather seal between body and back in MFD.

Put the lens on the Pentax before you visit the dirt and leave it there.

Has anyone done any comparisons of medium format backs vs. the Hasselblad scanners from medium format film? I shoot many scenics and landscapes in 6x4.5, 6x6 or 6x7. I currently use an Epson V700, but that scanner is not capable of shap scans to extract the full resolution of the film. I like large enlargements, min 8x10, up to 24x36". I tend to shoot more freely with a DSLR, but the image quality doesn't compare to my medium format work. I'm wondering if I'm better off with a Hasselblad scanner than a medium format back...

Quick test with the D800 and a macro ring with the 85mm "scanning" a 6x8cm negative.

Exposing with the histogram nice an centered achieves very good tonality and the file can take quite a bit of adjustmentwithout artifacts. The really clean shadows of the D800 make for nice highlight tonality reproducing negatives.The 85mm is not a macro and not optimized for macro at all... so the grain in the corners is not as crisp as the center.

Next step will be using A Fuji GX680 lens and two or four frame stitching For 60MP and 120MP "scans"

I'm not really sure about what you mean by 100%, if you mean "actual pixels" I would say that the P45+ image is not sharp. All sharp P45+ images I have seen were really crisp. If you tried to scale the P45+ image to same scale as the 4x5" the difference would make more senses.

I got a small part of a Velvia 67 (from Mamiya 67) scanned at 10000 PPI from Tim Parkin, and at least MTF-wise it outperformed IQ180, so I am pretty sure that film has a lot to give if you scan well enough.

On the other hand, I would say that digital images are different.

When I tested my Pentax 67 with Ektar 100 vs my Sony Alpha I did a scan at 6096 PPI. The scan was made by Dominique Ventzke who had the following interesting comments:

"The Ektar neg was very interesting especially compared to the digital shot of your Alpha. In terms of resolution I think the 6x7 records much finer detail as long as there is enough contrast. But the digital is sharper when it comes to low contrast textures and has higher micro contrast as can be seen in the wear and tear of the house walls. I was able to extract quite a bit of information from the highly saturated flowers. I donít know how these flowers look like but to me the film image looks more real, three-dimensional and subtly detailed than the harsh pixelation of the Alpha image.

When you compare film and digital I think itís not so much a matter of which is technically better in image quality. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Itís not so black and white that you can say you need this many MP to match film in 6x7, 4x5Ē or 8x10Ē. To me the difference in the look of film based and sensor based photography is much more obvious. For example the open shadow detail and highlight rendition of color negative film corresponds very well with the way I see the world with my eyes. The grain however does not and yet it can look very pleasing. Film scales really well when you enlarge it. But the optical quality of the enlargement (enlarging lens or scanner) is a really important factor. You will start to see the grain already at moderate enlargements but it takes a really long stretch before the image falls apart. For example you can reduce the scans to 80 MP and still have a very good image quality on pixel level albeit at much lower microcontrast than a comparable MFD image."

I would say that Dominique's observations are pretty consistent with what I have seen.

any way, i note also i spend 1h30 , setting up and focussing the thing, where i had to scan 15 minits to have a High ress scan.. i've tried f8, F16, F32 , the F16 was the best.. that's what i've shown..

I had an interesting chat with an engineer with a motion picture scanning company.He told me that macro lenses just don't do the job well enough and to approach the qualities of a drum scanner systems have to do three flash exposures and need to be heavily built systemswith precision thermal/humidity control and custom optics as well as 4 edge frame pressure plate.In his opinion a repro stand with a still camera and macro lens however high end will onlybe a high volume, but low quality scanning alternative. Great for volume documentation, but not a highimage quality system.Some customized systems use dichroic filters and 9 monochrome exposures. Doing color balance analogically beforedigitizing makes a significant difference.